Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

State government is full of them. There are more than 400 pots of money, called restricted funds, that account for about $20 billion in annual spending, according to the House Fiscal Agency.

And as lawmakers scramble to put together a Plan B to raise about $1.3 billion in new road funding after the failure of Proposal 1 on Tuesday, state House Speaker Kevin Cotter called last week for a "complete evaluation of all restricted spending" as part of the search for a road-funding solution, knowing that in most cases the restricted funds come from specific sources and under state law must be spent in specific ways.

"It may be statutorily protected, but we are the body to reprioritize that," Cotter told reporters.

Still, without radical changes in spending priorities, state budget experts are doubtful the vast majority of the funds are going to be much, if any, help in solving Michigan's highway pothole and faltering bridge problems.

In fact, if you take away the four biggest funds, or groups of funds, in terms of annual spending — the School Aid Fund, which pays for K-12 schools; Community Health funds, tied to Medicaid and federal matching funds; Transportation, already spent primarily on roads, and Treasury, tied primarily to revenue sharing with local governments — there's only about $2.2 billion in restricted fund spending left to play with.

About three dozen of the funds — including some of the largest ones — are governed by the state constitution, making them much more difficult to tap, at least directly, by lawmakers.

Only about a dozen restricted funds, accounting for about $175 million, fall into a category where they are not constitutionally protected and have fairly broad definitions of how they can be spent, according to a recent HFA report.

And those funds are not easily tapped for roads, either.

For example, the Game and Fish Protection Fund in the Department of Natural Resources, from which the state is spending about $78.5 million this year, is governed by the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Money from hunting and fishing license fees goes into the fund, and under the act, it must be spent on wildlife and fish management and related expenses.

Another example is the Direct Shipper Enhancement Revolving Fund, which spends about $125,000 annually collected from winemakers and blenders to cover the state's cost of regulating wine shipments to consumers.

In both cases, lawmakers could amend the relevant laws to allow the state to spend the money on something else — say roads. But unless they also vote to ax specific programs — in these cases, the state's fish and wildlife programs, or state oversight of delivery of wine shipments — such moves would leave them no further ahead, because they'd need to find a similar amount of money somewhere else.

Still, "there are things they can do," said Mitch Bean, a principal at Great Lakes Economic Consulting in Eaton Rapids and a former director of the House Fiscal Agency. "The next question is, are they good things to do?'

Bean said reviewing restricted fund spending can sometimes be coded language for raiding the School Aid Fund — not all of which is constitutionally required to go to K-12 education. The Legislature could opt to pay an increased share of the costs of community colleges or universities out of the School Aid Fund, then take the general fund money it would have used to support colleges and universities and spend it on roads, said Bean, who does not support such a move.

"I don't see that happening," said Rep. Al Pscholka, R-Stevensville, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, when asked whether the School Aid Fund might be used to fund roads.

But Senate Minority Leader Jim Ananich, D-Flint, said as long as Republicans who control both chambers of the Legislature are talking about finding $1.3 billion in additional road money in the state's existing budget, rather than through measures to raise new revenue, he fears where the cuts will fall.

"We need new revenue that deals with roads and makes sure we fund schools, police and fire," Ananich said. "The speaker wants to go in a different direction, and I don't agree with them on that."

One area Cotter mentioned as a possible source of road money is restricted funding now spent on economic development, such as through the 21st Century Jobs Fund under the Michigan Strategic Fund of the Michigan Economic Development Corp.

"You can't really have economic development without roads," Cotter said. "So I think it makes sense to use dollars that may be going to economic development to build up our road infrastructure. Companies looking to locate look at many, many factors, and I have to say that roads is one of those factors."

Both Bean and Kyle Jen, the current deputy director of the House Fiscal Agency, said it's possible road money in the low hundreds of millions could be found in the MEDC, if that's what lawmakers want to do.

The state appropriated about $143 million this year from the Michigan Strategic Fund, according to the HFA report. But the fund also receives money from other sources not subject to annual legislative appropriations, such as revenues from tribal gaming. Again, however, using any or all of that money to pay for road repairs would be taking funds away from traditional ways the agency promotes Michigan and Michigan businesses.

State Rep. Peter Pettalia, R-Presque Isle, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, said there are some steps he'd like to see: Of the state's sales tax revenue, only 83% is constitutionally dedicated to expenditures such as schools and local governments, and he'd like to see the 17% that goes to the general fund spent on roads, generating about $150 million or more annually.

Among his other ideas, Pettalia noted that 2% of the Michigan Transportation Fund is now dedicated, by statute, to recreational uses such as trails. He'd like to amend the law to redirect that $25 million a year to roads.

There are "these little pieces that would please most everybody" and "show that we are squeezing the money from within," Pettalia said.

The restricted funds listed by the House Fiscal Agency in its August report don't include all the restricted funds the state controls — just those that are subject to annual appropriations by the Legislature. There are other big funds that aren't listed and would also be difficult or impossible to touch, such as pension funds and funds used to pay unemployment insurance claims.

Another fund not listed in the report is the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Fund, which contains close to $20 billion. The money comes from a surcharge motorists pay on their no-fault insurance certificates, is overseen by a board made up of insurance executives, and is used to reimburse insurance companies for auto injury claims that exceed $530,000.

Rep. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township, has introduced a bill to use only the interest from the claims fund, which can total more than $700 million a year, to fund roads, at least for a few years.

"It's the people who put the cars and trucks on the road who contributed to that," Lucido said. "So why not use interest only and sunset it when we get the roads up to par?"

Other lawmakers aren't sure it's a good idea.

"To the extent that people have ideas, I don't want to foreclose any of those ideas," said Cotter.

However, "as a matter of first impression, MCCA is a very controversial thing to look at. As you look at making changes, even taking interest away, you're looking at people who have already sustained a catastrophic injury. If you're looking at in any way touching the current MCCA for the purpose or road funding, that's not going to go over well."